Mar 16

Mar 16 Denis Villeneuve's "DUNE: PART TWO"

Action, Science Fiction, Thriller, Violent, War, Weird, Another Time & Place, Drama, Grim, Monsters

There is no question that DUNE PART TWO is a magnificent piece of filmmaking. Experienced in a theater with a huge IMAX screen and a thundering sound system, the movie provides an awesome experience to the viewer—and it's a significant improvement over part one, which I found rather boring. I would like to see PART TWO again.

And yet...

I have some misgivings about the film, misgivings that will probably lead to my leaving PART TWO off my "best of" list this year.

I read the novel long ago and remember being totally blown away. I enjoyed the two Dune series that were broadcast in the US on the SciFi channel, and I love David Lynch’s quirky DUNE.

Lynch’s film has long been a favorite of mine. In my opinion, the entry of the Guild Navigator into the emperor’s throne room as imagined by David Lynch is one of the all-time great sequences in cinema history, comparable in ranking to Charlton Heston’s chariot race in BEN-HUR, the last battle in THE SEVEN SAMURAI, and Ripley versus the Queen in ALIENS.

But I digress. Why the misgivings about Villeneuve's magnificent film?

It's Paul. I don't know if it's Timothée Chalamet’s performance or Villeneuve’s direction, but I found Paul to be unexciting, unconvincing, and not a charismatic leader. His mother played by Rebecca Ferguson is not far behind. The two have little chemistry together. Yet we are to believe that Paul is a result of generations of Bene-Gesserit bloodline manipulation gone awry.

I don't buy it. I never got rid of the feeling that I was watching two excellent actors playing roles their hearts were not completely into. (For better Ferguson performancee see SILO or DR. SLEEP.)

Who is impressive?

Answer: Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha and Javier Bardem as Stilgar. They owned scenes when the spotlight turned on them.

Production-wise I can't praise the film enough; special effects, photography, design, vehicles, editing, and music are all magnificent. They will surely win many awards.

Note: there is little joy or humor in this film. Perhaps that is just an accurate reflection of Herbert novel, and maybe it's because I've seen so many films in my many years of filmgoing. But there is nothing really positive, joyous, or uplifting about this technically superb film. It did not engage me emotionally. Monumental, yes; gorgeous in many spots, certainly; and stunningly original in some ways. I found watching it to be entertaining--but exhausting.

What would I have changed? That's hard to say. I'm not an artist and would not know where to start. Plus, if you're going to be true to the Herbert novel, you're probably not going to find many places to insert a few laughs!

But I would like to see the movie again; perhaps from the viewpoint of art appreciation that's enough.